Alabama Petrofsky wrote:
[...]
> as a maximum vertical price fixing agreement, either of which would
> be reviewed under the rule of reason.
Well, well, well.
-----
48.1. The State of Arizona wins. The U.S. Supreme Court held that the
defendants, the Medical Society, Foundation, and its members, engaged
in price fixing in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The
Supreme Court held that price fixing is a per se violation of Section 1
of the Sherman Act, i.e., once price fixing is found, no defenses may be
raised to try to justify the price fixing. The defendants argued that
Section 1 only prohibited the fixing of minimum prices and did not
prohibit the fixing of maximum prices, as set by the doctors in this
case. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, holding that the
setting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
of a maximum price is really the setting of a minimum price if all
doctors
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
agreed to charge the maximum price. ... The Supreme Court held that the
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
doctorsÂ’ price fixing was a per se unreasonable restraint of trade that
violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act. Arizona v. Maricopa County
Medical Society, 457 U.S. 332, 102 S.Ct. 2466, 73 L.Ed.2d 48 (1982)
-----
It held:
-----
Respondents' maximum-fee schedules do not involve price-fixing in only a
literal sense. Broadcast Music, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System,
Inc.,
441 U.S. 1, distinguished. As agreements among independent competing
entrepreneurs, they fit squarely into the horizontal price-fixing mold.
-----
Hmmm.
regards,
alexander.
_______________________________________________
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
